Like all types of development, there are some good places and some bad places for wind turbines.
Ontario’s proposed 5km shoreline exclusionary zone attempts to solve this problem with a sledge hammer rather than the scalpel that was called for.
Offshore energy is nothing new. There are many examples in Denmark of wind turbines developments in near shore areas within 5km, including: Vindeby (1.5km offshore), Middelgrunden (3.5km offshore), Samso (3.5km offshore), Ronland (1km offshore), and Frederikshavn (1km offshore).
In 2000, the Danish Energy Authority appointed five international experts to the International Advisory Panel of Experts on Marine Ecology (IAPEME), including marine ecology experts from Universities in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. The IAPEME goals were to comment on the observed impacts to marine wildlife and environmental monitoring methods of offshore wind turbine developments in Denmark. Their 2006 publication found that “The studies have shown that the Nysted and Horns Rev offshore wind farms have had very little impact on the environment, neither during their construction nor during their operational phases.” Further, “Large offshore wind farms can be constructed and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species.”
There are clearly some places where wind turbines should be pushed further than 5km from shore, if they’re even allowed at all. The proposed SouthPoint Wind project, which would site hundreds of turbines right next to Point Pelee, comes to mind. But what fact-based argument can there be to disallow turbines off the shore of urban Scarborough? None, it seems to us.
Over the next few weeks and months, the Green Energy Act Alliance will be pushing for a setback based on the best science. Five km may be necessary in some cases, but this is one situation where one size doesn't fit all.
Posts
